Continued Uncommon Junk Talk

See also Our Genomes, ENCODE, and Intelligent Design

Maybe the reason IDists are so intent on retaining the "all junk DNA has function" idea is because so much of it is common across humanity, and even across species. If they say it has no function, they risk destroying their "big tent" by alienating YECs. YECs *have* to believe God created each species with it's "junk DNA" 6,000 years ago, and He "must've had a reason".

It is really an important issue for you people. The people that controll the editorial content of this forum continue to edit out my comments. The concepts that are embodied in my comments are NOT TRIVIAL AND NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY ANY LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC POSITIONS BEING PUT FORTH IN ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL ARENA OF SERIOUS DISCUSSION REGARDING SUCH MATTERS. Who are these people? Why don't you as (apparently intelligent individuals who at the very least need to open mindedly consider all perpectives that viably have some legitimate statements to make regarding the topics at hand in order to even self-consider your status as a "real" scientist let alone put yourself out to the public as such.) YOu who are being paid by the public trust funds, should require yourselves to look beyond your philosophical yearnings and respect the individuals who are funding your endeavors to the point where you consider the vast array of unanswered questions remaining in respect to the (what is best described at this point) philosophical assertions put forth by the macro-evolutionary "priests". Thank you very much.

Ka-ching...$$ .. $$ Neal you are a gem...

Tinyfrog....

are you saying that the lack of Junk DNA is a prediction of YEC that has been confirmed?

Alan: Tinyfrog.... are you saying that the lack of Junk DNA is a prediction of YEC that has been confirmed?

Right in that ID proponents have argued that based on theistic considerations, Junk DNA could not possibly be junk

YECs *have* to believe God created each species with it’s “junk DNA” 6,000 years ago, and He “must’ve had a reason”.

Biologists have been very quick to call any DNA they don't understand junk. Maybe because MET predicts lots of junk. But anyone who questions MET, and its underlying philosophy, is more likely to think the "junk" has unknown functions.

The more that is learned about DNA, the less understandable it seems. It's similar to the situation in physics -- when they figured out how to split the atom everyone thought it would be a short while before the ultimate components of matter were discovered and understood. Instead, physics is now lost in the wilderness of matrix theory and string theory, etc.

The same thing is happening in genetics. Most DNA is non-coding, and scientists are beginning to realize that does not mean it does nothing. In fact, the so-called junk may turn out to be much more important than the small percent that is now considered non-junk.

In Darwin's time, cells were thought to be simple. As soon as genetics was discovered, everything clicked into place. Or so they thought.

DNA will turn out to be at least as baffling and strange as the subatomic world has turned out to be.

For me, that is not a cause for despair. I expect nature to be infinitely more intelligent than ourselves. It doesn't mean science is worthless, it just means we will never be god-like and able to completely understand and control nature.

When some of the "junk" DNA is found to have a purpose, that doesn't prove ID or disprove MET. It isn't that simple. But the more complex and intelligent DNA turns out to be, the less plausible the current MET will seem.

Neal, where can I get some of that "public trust fund" money?

Mats: "ID scientists"?

There aren't any.

Oh, wow!

Neal, Mats and realpc all posting in the same thread. This is gonna take a while.

It is really an important issue for you people. The people that controll the editorial content of this forum continue to edit out my comments.

— Neal

The concepts that are embodied in my comments are NOT TRIVIAL AND NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BY ANY LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC POSITIONS BEING PUT FORTH IN ANY KIND OF MEANINGFUL ARENA OF SERIOUS DISCUSSION REGARDING SUCH MATTERS.

Who are these people?

Why don’t you as (apparently intelligent individuals who at the very least need to open mindedly consider all perpectives that viably have some legitimate statements to make regarding the topics at hand in order to even self-consider your status as a “real” scientist let alone put yourself out to the public as such.)

YOu who are being paid by the public trust funds, should require yourselves to look beyond your philosophical yearnings and respect the individuals who are funding your endeavors to the point where you consider the vast array of unanswered questions remaining in respect to the (what is best described at this point) philosophical assertions put forth by the macro-evolutionary “priests”. Thank you very much.

At least here they have an opportunity to contradict DaveScot without the risk of being banned.

Realpc evidently hasn't heard of the onion test, Neal needs to publish his science (whenever he finds any) in the nearest refereed journal if his need for attention is so acute, and Mats needs to read Douglas Theobald's article in the talk.origins archive.

1. Was the claim that the “junk DNA” is not “junk” at all done by ID scientists based on theological considerations?

— Mats

2. Even if it was based on theistic assumptions, the truth is that they got it right, while Darwinists got it wrong.

YECers do not believe that God created “each species with it’s junk DNA 6,000 years ago”.

— Mats

I tried to suggest the absolute minimum that ID would need to do in order to be viewed as scientific on this topic. I was not even expecting *data*, so this is less than is demanded of scientists who work on this subject. No responses yet, except some sarcasm on an ID blog.

An opportunity for ID to be scientific

Biologists have been very quick to call any DNA they don’t understand junk.

— realpc

Maybe because MET predicts lots of junk. But anyone who questions MET, and its underlying philosophy,

is more likely to think the “junk” has unknown functions.

The more that is learned about DNA, the less understandable it seems.

It’s similar to the situation in physics – when they figured out how to split the atom everyone thought it would be a short while before the ultimate components of matter were discovered and understood. Instead, physics is now lost in the wilderness of matrix theory and string theory, etc.

The same thing is happening in genetics. Most DNA is non-coding, and scientists are beginning to realize that does not mean it does nothing.

In fact, the so-called junk may turn out to be much more important than the small percent that is now considered non-junk.

In Darwin’s time, cells were thought to be simple.

As soon as genetics was discovered, everything clicked into place. Or so they thought.

DNA will turn out to be at least as baffling and strange as the subatomic world has turned out to be.

For me, that is not a cause for despair. I expect nature to be infinitely more intelligent than ourselves.

It doesn’t mean science is worthless, it just means we will never be god-like and able to completely understand and control nature.

When some of the “junk” DNA is found to have a purpose, that doesn’t prove ID or disprove MET.

It isn’t that simple. But the more complex and intelligent DNA turns out to be, the less plausible the current MET will seem.

realpc wrote:

"When some of the “junk” DNA is found to have a purpose, that doesn’t prove ID or disprove MET. It isn’t that simple. But the more complex and intelligent DNA turns out to be, the less plausible the current MET will seem."

I really hate to so this, but for once I agree with realpc. In fact, some "junk" DNA has been found to have a "purpose", (or at least a function), that has only recently been discovered. Indeed, that doesn't prove ID or disprove MET. It merely shows that some things are not yet fully understood and that science is always making progress. It also means that current evolutionary theory will definately have to be revised and updated in order to account for the new knowledge. Of course that really isn't a problem, since it has already happened repeatedly since Darwin published The Origin of Species.

Still, there are good theoretical reasons for provisionally assuming that the majority of "junk" DNA indeed has no function. This observation can easily be accounted for by MET. However, if YECs or IDists or anyone else wants to predict that all DNA has a function and that there really is no such thing as "junk" DNA, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the function and to explain the observations better than the "junk" hypothesis. Until they do, they can whine about our lack of understanding all they want, but no one is going to take them seriously until they get into the lab and do some science.

I do have to disagree with realpc on one point however. I don't really think that calling DNA "intelligent" is useful or meaningful, especially if you can't define it, measure it, or test it. DNA can be selected, adapted, information-rich, complex, etc. but it cannot be "intelligent" as anyone making the claim has already demonstrated.

Neal: Who are these people? Why don't you as (apparently intelligent individuals who at the very least need to open mindedly consider all perpectives that viably have some legitimate statements to make regarding the topics at hand in order to even self-consider your status as a "real" scientist let alone put yourself out to the public as such.) YOu who are being paid by the public trust funds, should require yourselves to look beyond your philosophical yearnings and respect the individuals who are funding your endeavors to the point where you consider the vast array of unanswered questions remaining in respect to the (what is best described at this point) philosophical assertions put forth by the macro-evolutionary "priests". Thank you very much.

RealPC, you need to back up your statements.

A while ago, people started hammering you about ID being an actual 'theory' or not.
So you just waved your hands and disappeared.

I know you're busy.
We all are.

Yet if you are going to take the time to post an assertion, then you need to take a little more time to actually back up your statements.

Hit-and-run postings don't cut it.

Post here by all means...but make coherent arguments.
Please.

Mats said in regard to "predictions" by ID "scientists"

2. Even if it was based on theistic assumptions, the truth is that they got it right, while Darwinists got it wrong.

even a broken clock "gets it right" twice a day

and "Darwinists" (I assume he means actual scientists) never "predicted" that non coding DNA is non-functional - just that it has no known function. The absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence

in addition you don't get credit for making a "prediction" without proposing a testable/disprovable mechanism that shows how you made the prediction- this is why astrology and the psychic friends network are not considered scientific endeavors!

Dearly beloved we are gathered here today to praise "real" scientists.

Now all please hold hands and kneel (or you will be Nealed in your public purse by farce).

Oh Darwin we beseech you, show us a sign.

*a cricket chirps*

(couldn't resist k.e.)

realpc wrote:
"For me, that is not a cause for despair. I expect nature to be infinitely more intelligent than ourselves. It doesn’t mean science is worthless, it just means we will never be god-like and able to completely understand and control nature."

I'm not sure what you mean by nature being more "intelligent" than ourselves. But I do believe that there will always be a scientific frontier and that mankind's' destiny is to continue to challenge that frontier. Some would say that our reach exceeds our grasp for a reason, I think that this property of our being pre-disposes us to be explorers, to push the edge of the envelope so to speak. Why would this be a cause for despair? it is the source of wonder!

Still, there are good theoretical reasons for provisionally assuming that the majority of “junk” DNA indeed has no function. This observation can easily be accounted for by MET. However, if YECs or IDists or anyone else wants to predict that all DNA has a function and that there really is no such thing as “junk” DNA, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the function and to explain the observations better than the “junk” hypothesis. Until they do, they can whine about our lack of understanding all they want, but no one is going to take them seriously until they get into the lab and do some science.

— David Stanton

mats:L2. Even if it was based on theistic assumptions, the truth is that they got it right, while Darwinists got it wrong.

nope, darwinists did not get it wrong and no creationists did not make a prediction based on ID

Even before I clicked the Comments link, I predicted that realpc would post his junk arguments on a thread about "junk DNA." And, lo and behold, my prediction proved true. I'm a scientist! WOOHOO!!

I now offer a testable hypothesis: realpc is attracted, as if my magnetism or some mindless atavistic force, to posts about "junk DNA," and is compelled to repeat the same old discredited arguments he's already posted innumerable times before. After experimental verification, I guess the next step would be trying to identify the specific force. (It's probably not supernatural -- I've never heard of any spirits that stupid.)

Possible functions for non-coded DNA:

1. Each length serves as a bridge to connect the lengths on either side. Without that length of so-called junk, the opposite ends would drift apart. Think about it.

2. They serve as repositories for nucleic acids. If a gene is short a cup of cytosines, it can borrow them from the junk pile.

3. They sequester atoms that otherwise might spontaneously combine to form toxic snake venoms.

4. They make the 'slack' in the chromosome. Without them, the chromosome would be far too tight and snap like a rubber band when its tied up in those 'X' shaped thingies.

For those interested in DNA, there are some spectacular models of DNA at the thednastore.com. Select the Models option. I particularly like the children's DNA toy. I think we will all agree it is never to early to start learning about DNA.

Having a model of this extraordinary molecule at hand, brings a certain reality to these discussions. Perhaps some of the ID advocates could use these models in an effort to find a theory and begin some research.

I will also note that Watson and Crick bobble head dolls, a bronze bust of Charles Darwin, and a spectacular DNA lamp are available.

While I have no affiliation, thednastore.com, is the most enjoyable webstore I have every encountered.

rog

It's monotonously true that IDists are wholly disingenuous in pretending to predict anything at all, including "junk DNA," because they accuse us of being unfair any time we note "poor design" or some such thing. As junk DNA happens to be "poor design" compared with any sort of optimal design (ignoring the need for evolutionary material and mechanisms, that is), and that's how it's largely been portrayed in these exchanges, either the IDists need to acknowledge that they do predict that there is little or no "poor design", or acknowledge that they cannot predict anything about "junk DNA."

OK, but that's obvious. Almost certainly the real reason they claim to predict it, other than that they like to pretend to be doing science, is that they deny (in essence) evolution and its mechanisms. We said that there is useless DNA (typically we're careful about not claiming that too much is useless), they said that MET doesn't work, so when some "junk DNA" is found to be useful they think that they predicted something. We, of course, have tended to point to specific "junk DNA", like the defunct gene in primates for manufacturing ascorbic acid. Unsurprisingly, they ignore all the details and try to claim that the fact that some "junk DNA" has functions is a triumph for ID. Well, it isn't, because, not just the devil, but everything in science is in the details, and ID lacks the ability to deal with details at all.

The fact of the matter is almost certainly that eukaryotic evolution does depend upon non-coding DNA in order to provide some of the important material of adaptation (chromosome doubling is evidently important even in animals). In that sense, actual "junk DNA" really isn't "poor design" in any sense (I'm writing of "junk" overall, not the parastitical and damaging DNA), rather it is important material for the very processes that IDists deny. If we were to grant that ID predicts that important evolutionary mechanisms do not occur--which it really cannot do, and which "prediction" thus couldn't provide any evidence for ID even if they were fulfilled--in that sense we might grant that ID predicts little or no junk DNA. But of course ID has to make its own predictions if it is to ever be science, hence its sheer denial of evolutionary mechanisms yields no inherent predictions at all.

And really, the issue is not "junk DNA" at all, it is non-coding DNA, which ID cannot explain where it provides regulatory functions, where retrotransposons have inserted "junk" that either has or has not been subsequently adapted for our use, where transposons produce damage, or where the "vitamin C gene" has evidently evolved out of a functional gene. A real science would address the specifics, as MET does, while only a pseudoscience would treat all non-coding DNA as if it constituted a single category.

It is ID's inability to explain any single thing, or any of the integrated complexities of life, that makes it such a woefully bad excuse for "science". For, it thinks that it becomes science if it manages to find any flaws in the actual science by dint of "winner-takes-all" rules. Real science, though, explains real data, instead of mistaking science as a fight to win against the hated "atheists", or whoever the enemy might be.

IOW, IDists continue to project that evolution exists to get rid of God, so their only goal is to defend "God", as if any real God would need their pathetic "defense". This is why they can't even imagine what science is, and thus cannot imagine what it would take for ID to be science.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Raging Bee,

I agree. But you forgot to add that he/she/it also seems to be irresistably attracted, like a moth to a flame, to any conversation that involves or can be steered to involve complexity. You have to admire the determination of a guy/gal/being who is willing to make the same assertations thousands of times without any evidence whatsoever. That isn't really so bad. Even his/her/it's ignorance of the scientific literature can be tolerated. What I find completely intolerable is the fact that he/she/it continually ignores evidence that is presented to him/her/it and goes right on making the same claims that have already been conclusively falsified. I have seen him/her/it change some statements when provided with evidence, but invariably he/she/it goes back to making the same claims some time later, as if we will all forget that he/she/it has been proven wrong. Oh well, at least he/she/it is a step above Neal, a dubious distinction at best.

...or where the “vitamin C gene” has evidently evolved out of a functional gene.

Oh, wow! Neal, Mats and realpc all posting in the same thread. This is gonna take a while.

Mats 2. Even if it was based on theistic assumptions, the truth is that they got it right, while Darwinists got it wrong.

I think the IDists keep claiming there is no junk DNA for two reasons. 1. Noncoding DNA undermines their theological supposition that the genome is designed. A cursory examination of the human body will do the same. Hey, god, about that back design... 2. This is one of the few predictions they have made. That it is almost certainly wrong makes them look silly... again.

jasonmitchell,

realpc, Mats, and their ilk seem to be under the impression that scientists believe in the "religion" of "Darwinism" and that if they poke a hole in it, all the scientists will be reduced to tears because their entire worldview is shattered. No matter how hard people have tried to disabuse them of this notion, they still can't wrap their synapses around the fact that scientists thrive on finding out things that are unexplained, because that typically leads to new discoveries.

They think that scientists will despair, but we scientists see it as part of the process, as you very eloquently put it.

The term "junk DNA" refers specifically to DNA sequence that has no current function. It was known long before the term was coined that noncoding DNA contains important regulatory elements, so it is an error to equate "junk DNA" with noncoding DNA, and plays into the hands of the creationists. A good summary of the original meaning of the term may be found here:

http://genomicron.blogspot.com/2007/06/function-non-function-some-function.html

Junk DNA is probably best regarded as a null hypothesis. There are known mechanisms for propagation of nonfunctional DNA in the chromosomes, and it can therefore be predicted that some DNA will be junk. This means that one cannot assume without evidence that a given DNA sequence has a function, because it is always possible that it has none. How much of DNA is actually junk remains unknown (and indeed, since junk is defined by exclusion of function, it cannot be known for sure until the entire function of the genome is fully explicated), although the large variation in the DNA content of morphologically similar species suggests that at least some species have quite a bit of junk DNA

Don't even bother answering "Neal". Before Robert Crowther blocked all comments[1] on "ID the Future" in August, Neal smeared his verbal feces throughout that forum for a long time. One time I regurgitated some of his comments back at him as though from another commenter, and he said he could agree with some of them, but not all. "Neal" actually seems to be an offshoot of a 1977 internal IBM program {"Foggy.exec")for generating content-free text for management reports. If so, it still fails the Turing test.
===============
[1]-- The reason that comments were banned from "ID the Future" last month is that I complained to Crowther about a personal threat of violence in one of the comments. I asked him only to post a warning, but he shut comments off altogether.

Laser said: realpc, Mats, and their ilk seem to be under the impression that scientists believe in the “religion” of “Darwinism” and that if they poke a hole in it, all the scientists will be reduced to tears because their entire worldview is shattered.

Pau,

Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. At least it adequately explains the observed data as well as any other hypothesis at this point.

In a news cycle dominated by Paris Hilton and the Apple iPhone, Craig Venter has announced the results of his lab's work on genome transplantation methods that allows for the transformation of one type of bacteria into another, dictated by the transplanted chromosome. In other words, one species becomes another. This is news, bound to affect everyone on the planet. Below is the press release fromVenter's Institute, along with links to the scientific paper published in Science, and the international press

"The picture that's emerging" of how living cells actually operate and evolve "is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it's almost depressing," Rigoutsos said.

Gee whiz,
Your sympathetic editors (forget about what we can really demonstrate scientifically.) continue to edit out my scientific responses to you pathetic boneheads and your fairy-tale wishful thinking assertions stemming from your totally unsubstantiated heritage . So much for the expression of important ideas (if they don't satisfy our particular philosophical slant) I find it very frustrating, and frankly, I am of a mind to let you in-breeding philosophical public screwing tyrants continue on your own without comment at some point. You have serious self esteem and ego problems that should probably be examined and treated by experts in the psychological sciences, if not for your sakes, for the sake of the public that you have been screwing over for so many years with your macro-evolutionary rantings and totally unverified speculations.

Are you going to take this one out too mr. EDITOR ALL-MIGHTY?

PvM wrote,

"Finding evidence that some of the genome encodes for RNA, somehow undermines the Darwinian paradigm…" And wonders why on earth the ID crowd would think such a thing.

I think I can help you out here. In September, 1957, Francis Crick outlined a principle which he called The Central Dogma. In Crick's word's, "This states that once 'information' has passed into protein IT CANNOT GET OUT AGAIN." (Crick actually used italics rather than caps.)

That is the ENTIRE "Central Dogma." In 1957, when they hadn't made a dent in the coding problem, it was somewhat daring. But all Crick was saying was, 'don't bother looking for ways protein codes into DNA. Concentrate on the other way around.' And AFAIK, nobody ever has found a mechanism for protein coding DNA.

You would think such a simple idea would be easy to grasp. But for some reason it's been overlaid with James Watson's 'slogan' ("DNA-> RNA-> protein) and a lot of other stuff Crick never put in there. So it's apparently become popular to say that the Central Dogma has been disproved. I read it in an article in Scientific American, in a context which proved absolutely that the authors didn't have a clue what the Central Dogma actually said.

Let me repeat once more; all the Central Dogma says, is, "once 'information' has passed into protein IT CANNOT GET OUT AGAIN."

Now, if legitimate scientists who ought to know better go around saying that "finding evidence that some of the genome encodes for RNA, undermines..." *the Central Dogma* (based on their own ignorance of what the Central Dogma actually states) you can hardly expect the ID crowd not to one-up them in ignorance. I believe they are further confusing the issue by conflating the Central Dogma with "the Darwinian paradigm."

So, in evolutionary terms, what we have here is a meme with two point mutations. The real Central Dogma has mutated into Jim Watson's slogan, and the *concept* of a Central Dogma has mutated into "the Darwinian Paradigm."

All I can say for the IDers is that they do an extraordinary job of keeping mutated memes alive and reproducing indefinitely. I expect this one will be around for some time to come.

Gee whiz, Your sympathetic editors (forget about what we can really demonstrate scientifically.) continue to edit out my scientific responses to you pathetic boneheads and your fairy-tale wishful thinking assertions stemming from your totally unsubstantiated heritage .

— Neal

So much for the expression of important ideas (if they don’t satisfy our particular philosophical slant)

I find it very frustrating, and frankly, I am of a mind to let you in-breeding philosophical public screwing tyrants continue on your own without comment at some point.

You have serious self esteem and ego problems that should probably be examined and treated by experts in the psychological sciences,

if not for your sakes, for the sake of the public that you have been screwing over for so many years with your macro-evolutionary rantings and totally unverified speculations.

Are you going to take this one out too mr. EDITOR ALL-MIGHTY?

Are the comments here censored (aside from removing spam)? If so, what are the criteria?

While I mostly lurk here, one of the most valuable aspects of the Panda's Thumb for me is that it stands in stark contrast to Uncommon Descent in that all points of view can be expressed. Science welcomes dissent and discussion, believers in superstitious nonsense can't allow it. I'd rather see the foul-mouthed ramblings of the delusional, poorly educated, and/or willfully ignorant than take a step onto the slippery slope of censorship.

Neal,

Complaining that your comments are censored in a comment is a self-defeating strategy. It's like posting billboards that claim that the government will remove the billboards before anyone has a chance to read them. The very act of reading them falsifies the claim. And by the way, if your "scientific responses" have indeed been censored, that explains why none are to be found. An alternative hypothesis might be that none were ever made. Can you think of any way to distinguish between these two possibilities?

Why is it that you think you know what science has and has not proven? On what basis do you make that judgement? Are you intimately familiar with the scientific literature? Do you read hundreds of science journals every day? Are you even qualified to understand everything published in even one science journal? Why do you think that you are qualified to sit in judgement on entire fields of science? What is your area of expertise? Why should anyone lend any credence to any of your claims?

I would like to know what Neal's posts have to do with the topic of this thread. Quite frankly, I am getting sick and tired of him/her/it hijacking every thread with his innane mumbling. Does he even have any idea of what "junk DNA" is? Has he/she/it made any argument whatsoever regarding the topic? As far as I can tell, the words "junk" and "DNA" don't even occur in any of his/her/it's posts. There is just a bunch of nonsense about "unsubstantiated heritage" and whatnot. He/she/it is already claiming censorship, so why not give him what he wants? He should have been permanently banned for use of profanity and fill-in-the blank profanity already. We should at the very least make him stay on-topic. If the Neal persona is indeed just a computer text generating alrogithm, then it should be banned. If it is not, it should be able to show some semblence of rational thought or at least be able to address the topic at hand.

Neal, please point to the slightest shred of actual scientific content in any of your posts. All I've ever seen from you is abusive language, poor paragraph structure, a lot of all-caps typing, and a bunch of unsupported assertions presented as obvious fact. If you're comments are disappearing from this site (which I tend to oppose, as more than anything they serve to demonstrate the complete vacuity of your position), it's not censorship, it's housekeeping.

and frankly, I am of a mind to let you in-breeding philosophical public screwing tyrants continue on your own without comment at some point.

You have serious self esteem and ego problems that should probably be examined and treated by experts in the psychological sciences,

Are you going to take this one out too mr. EDITOR ALL-MIGHTY?

— Neal

Why should I? Your postings are quite educational in showing the lack of scientific content.

Indeed, having people as clearly mentally ill as Neal shreiking about the evils of evolution is publicity we just can’t buy.

Are the comments here censored (aside from removing spam)? If so, what are the criteria?

— Patrick

Although (speaking off the Wall here), sometimes off-topic comments get moved to other a-commode-tions. ;)

if YECs or IDists or anyone else wants to predict that all DNA has a function and that there really is no such thing as “junk” DNA, then the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate the function and to explain the observations better than the “junk” hypothesis.

Nigel D:

Are the comments here censored (aside from removing spam)? If so, what are the criteria?

— Patrick

IIUC, posts are only removed for profane language or for abusive personal attacks. After all, PT is a valuable educational tool, so its value would be diminished by comments full of scatological language.

Don't even bother answering "Neal". Before Robert Crowther blocked all comments[1] on "ID the Future" in August, Neal smeared his verbal feces throughout that forum for a long time. One time I regurgitated some of his comments back at him as though from another commenter, and he said he could agree with some of them, but not all. "Neal" actually seems to be an offshoot of a 1977 internal IBM program {"Foggy.exec")for generating content-free text for management reports. If so, it still fails the Turing test.
===============
[1]-- The reason that comments were banned from "ID the Future" last month is that I complained to Crowther about a personal threat of violence in one of the comments. I asked him only to post a warning, but he shut comments off altogether.

PvM-
At the risk of being banned from PT for daring to post an entry that isn't totally devoted to Neal, I'll try again to respond to your puzzlement above.

You wrote;
"What a weird bunch of people… Finding evidence that some of the genome encodes for RNA, somehow undermines the Darwinian paradigm…"

To reiterate my previous post, in September, 1957, Francis Crick gave a speech in which he posited the "Central Dogma." viz.,
“This states that once ‘information’ has passed into protein IT CANNOT GET OUT AGAIN.” (Crick actually used italics rather than caps.)

In 1957 no one knew exactly how nucleic acids related to protein, so Crick was merely telling people, 'don't waste your time looking for ways protein might code for nucleic acid.' And he was apparently quite right.

Unfortunately, this simple idea got overlaid with a lot of other stuff, and got translated in some people's minds to 'DNA *must* code for protein.' Based on this, I have seen several recent claims that 'the Central Dogma has been disproven,' which, in fact, only disproved the writers' ability to do accurate historical research.

The ID crowd have apparently picked up on this (wrong) claim that 'the Central Dogma has been disproven,' and further muddied the waters by confusing Crick's somewhat cheeky claim of "the Central Dogma" with the entire "Darwinian paradigm," leading to the weird assertion which you quoted above, PvM.

I wouldn't insist on reposting, except that this business of claiming the Central Dogma has been disproven has always irritated me. And now that it's giving aid and comfort to the IDers, it ought to be stopped.

Okay, guys. I've said my piece (again.) *sarcasm alert* You can get back to obsessing about Neal.

To reiterate my previous post, in September, 1957 . . .

— Hoary Puccoon

Okay, Nigel, it should have read, "to reiterate my previous post; in September, 1957...."

But getting back to Neal....

Seems like that in the long run, it's probably a bad idea to refer to a technical detail (such as proteins don't get used to generate DNA or RNA) as a "central dogma". It wasn't a dogma, it was a conclusion to be tested.

Henry

But getting back to Neal….

Henry J--
Yeah, Crick regretted the term later. He told the science writer, Horace Judson, "....one has paid for this terribly, because people resented the word 'dogma,' you see, and if it had been 'central hypothesis' nobody would have turned a hair."
But, since Crick was at least an agnostic, if not an atheist, he didn't take a religious term like dogma very seriously. He was partly telling people, though, NOT to treat it as an hypothesis to be tested, because it looked like it wouldn't pan out. So they concentrated on how nucleic acid codes for protein instead-- which turned out to be an immensely fruitful line of research.
At this point, it would probably be better if the entire term 'central dogma' was dropped, but it seems to have taken on an entire new life as a strawman to be knocked down-- more's the pity.

One day, we may well end up facing the fact that some of our DNA has no function at all.

Possible functions for non-cod[ing] DNA:

1. Each length serves as a bridge to connect the lengths on either side. Without that length of so-called junk, the opposite ends would drift apart. Think about it.

2. They serve as repositories for nucleic acids. If a gene is short a cup of cytosines, it can borrow them from the junk pile.

3. They sequester atoms that otherwise might spontaneously combine to form toxic snake venoms.

4. They make the ‘slack’ in the chromosome. Without them, the chromosome would be far too tight and snap like a rubber band when its tied up in those ‘X’ shaped thingies.

“One day”? Over half of the human genome consists of rotting retrovirus corpses in various stages of decay. What good can half a transposon, with its excision sites and start codons mutated and random stop codons introduced, possibly be? Then there’s the repetitive stuff. This is where (slight) variations in the amount are found between individuals; that’s how paternity tests work. But what else can millions of repeats of (for example) GAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGAGA be good for? That doesn’t leave much. The most optimistic estimates say that 20 % of the human genome – as opposed to 3 or 5 – might have a function. Then there’s the onion test… Then there’s the experiment: if you cut out several megabases of junk out of a mouse, what happens to the mouse? Nothing. Done, published. There does seem to be one function for genuine junk: genome size is correlated to cell size, and cell size has influence on metabolism and the like. But this is a function of the amount of junk, not a function of what the junk precisely is. Take all my junk DNA and replace it with random copies of a randomly chosen part of the junk DNA of a random amoeba – I bet nothing would happen, as long as the amount doesn’t change by more than a few tens of megabases or something.

— David Marjanovic